@Archangel3371 said:
@st_monica: Just pointing out the fact that your initial comment was kind of pointless because most every developer has a dud or two in their portfolio of games, even the most revered of developers. Then pointed out the fact that you decided to fallback on personal biases on how you felt about their other games. Once again pointed out that “standing the test of time” isn’t all that important. Just because a port of game gets a lower review years after it initially came out doesn’t mean it was overrated before either. A whole host of factors can contribute to those lower reviews.
This thread isn’t about “salty” comments others may or may not have made nor is it about games like Candy Crush are the greatest game ever made or whatever. It’s about whether or not the games coming out for Microsoft in the near future are important for them ie. getting a large amount of people interested enough in them to buy them, their products, and/or subscribe to their services. 🤷♂️
Well, I feel like this discussion will take us nowhere, so I'll just leave my final thoughts.
It's not pointless to take into account the recent FO76 blunder in predicting Starfield's quality. It shows that the studio clearly had some serious management, technical and marketing issues.
I have already acknowledged that my opinion of Todd's games is personal and I respect your opposition to it. That said, I believe it will become clear as time goes on that my perspective is not particularly biased.
I think it is reasonable to think that Skyrim, whose review scores had dropped that much in just five years, should have been overestimated to some extent in the first place. I also believe that the true value of video games can be seen through the test of time just like films and music.
Sure, this thread is about whether the new IPs such as Starfield and Redfall will be MS's "one of the major pillars." My answer is lol.
Log in to comment